The Opposite(Antonym) of “incorporeality”
The antonyms of incorporeality are corporeality, materiality, and tangibility. These antonyms describe the opposite of something that is not physical or tangible.
Explore all Antonyms of “incorporeality”
Definitions and Examples of corporeality, materiality, tangibility
Learn when and how to use these words with these examples!
The state of having a physical body; material existence.
Example
The artist's sculptures celebrate the beauty of corporeality and the human form.
The quality of being physical or composed of matter; substantiality.
Example
The philosopher argued that materiality is an illusion and that reality is fundamentally incorporeal.
The quality of being perceptible to the touch or capable of being grasped by the senses.
Example
The lawyer argued that the evidence lacked tangibility and was therefore inadmissible in court.
Key Differences: corporeality vs materiality vs tangibility
- 1Corporeality emphasizes the physical nature of something, while incorporeality emphasizes its lack of physicality.
- 2Materiality emphasizes the substance or matter of something, while incorporeality emphasizes its intangibility.
- 3Tangibility emphasizes the perceptibility of something through the senses, while incorporeality emphasizes its lack of sensory qualities.
Effective Usage of corporeality, materiality, tangibility
- 1Philosophy: Use these antonyms to discuss the nature of reality and the relationship between mind and body.
- 2Art: Use these antonyms to describe the physicality or intangibility of artistic works.
- 3Law: Use these antonyms to argue for or against the admissibility of evidence in court.
Remember this!
The antonyms of incorporeality describe the opposite of something that is not physical or tangible. Use corporeality, materiality, and tangibility to emphasize the physical, substantial, or perceptible qualities of something. These antonyms can be used in philosophy, art, law, and other contexts to explore the nature of reality, describe artistic works, or argue for or against the admissibility of evidence.
